Well, this is a bit of an odd thing to put up, as we haven't really posted a general blog entry like this before, but it felt almost a bit necessary to make this one.
We received some feedback from someone who came to our blog and what was said felt, while not poorly intentioned, like it is ultimately part of the problem. We will not name the individual who left the comment, but we will not sit idly back and let these words sit unopposed. Here is the text: "I don’t believe it is the intent of many people nowadays to target someone else because they are a certain color. I think from a financial point of view, it is smart, albeit distasteful, to recognize cheaper opportunities in the communities of discussion. Land is less expensive in these areas, the resistance is much cheaper to counter, and most people are happy that it isn’t placed in their own area. A larger army generally wins, and the combined mid, upper and white classes can entertain a larger army politically. Is there no neutral territory, no space that the city owns and can have the reason for building there that its their land? I think this is the job of city planners or whoever is to blame for inconsiderate constructions. Equality is linked to availability, the even distribution of services of all types ensures that everyone can complain, and complain they will. If someone thinks their entitled to something better, they can take that entitlement and fix it themselves. There is a balance of disparity between people within a city. With such an open system, no utopian construction could please everyone, and its not the city’s job to. Problems will only continue to arise unless there is a decrease in bias and historical precedent over how we view less fortunate communities within our society." There's a lot to pick apart in this reply, but ultimately it needs to be addressed, with some amount of cordial attitude. The original sentence states intent. Frankly though, intent does nothing. It does not make reparations for oppression, it does not fix the bigotry that does exist, it does not address the issues that face the people in these situations, it does not lead to change. Intent of the actions matter not if the actions that are perpetrated are inequal, cruel, or oppressive in behavior. Intent is not a valid response to reality. Next the author of this comment stated that it is smart to recognize "cheaper opportunities" from a "financial point of view". Who? Who is it smarter for? Who's financial point of view are you speaking to? To business interests that have no other goal than to make profit from the work of poor people and people of color? To stockholders of those companies that benefit from that oppression? It certainly isn't smarter for the people who live through this daily. To even begin to discuss the intelligence needed to recognize cheap "opportunities" is to completely be unable to recognize the bias in one's own perspective. To gloss over the opppression of people of color and low-income or poverty-stricken people is completely ludicrous. It immediately makes these people into individuals who are less important and less worthy of care than those of means and white people. That's the truth of the matter, whether or not the "intent" existed. It may be cheaper to exploit these communities, but it is not fair, kind, humane, or even decent. This is not a discussion of profit, bottom lines, or stockholders' bank accounts. This is a discussion of the necessities for equality for all people. Not just a select chosen few who have been born into financial or racial privilege. Along these lines is also the language used in the comment regarding a "larger army politically" which white people and middle-to-upper classes can hold. This is not discussed in a negative light. Rather it's stated just as a fact. These semantics are directly part of the problem we see. This blind acceptance of the status quo rather than seeking to create a just society for all is all too prevalent. This project seeks to break this status quo, not to enable it. Using this language is part of the problem, not part of the rationale in favor of environmental racism. Continuing forward the comment asks if there is any "neutral territory" remaining. This is probably the cornerstone of many arguments we hear regarding environmental justice and racism. Essentially: "the city owns the land, why shouldn't they be able to do what they want with it, and why are you playing the race card". This is so incredibly frustrating that it's difficult to not be angry in reply, but we will address this in a way that tries to be level headed. There is no "race card". There is systematic, historical, contemporary, and stastical inequalities for communities of color and poor folks. They are targeted. It can be seen in data from decades ago through current day. We can list lead levels, gentrification, access to resources, and the state apparatus itself. Flint, Michigan has been in a public health state of emergency for four years and the government of Michigan is ending bottled water relief to the people. Flint's population is only 37% white, the city proper's median wage is $18,000 less than the rest of the metro area, and 63.7% of the population makes less than $30,000. This isn't "playing the race card", this is reality. No matter how much it makes you uncomfortable, no matter how much you want to be safe and secure inside your bubble, reality dictates that people are suffering from these actions. Scientifically and stastically. Saying that the city owns the land so it should have the right to force people into dangerous and harmful conditions that are not pushed onto white and wealthy people is a dangerous premise and should be treated as such. The comment says the job to fix it is left to the planners, yet the planners and the policy makers are the ones who have created this situation, so maybe its time for the people these actions are harming to have a voice that is heard. Next point: "equality is linked to availability", "equality means we can all complain", and (most infuriatingly) "if someone thinks they're entitled they can fix it themselves". First, and simply, just because something is available doesn't mean it's achievable. There's the availability to purchase a $1 billion skyscraper in Mumbai. Does that mean it's feasible or achievable? No. No it doesn't. This is a fallacy many choose to dilute themselves with because it makes them feel that we're all equal if we all have the legal ability to buy it. Generational poverty and wealth are important notes to take. The United States has some of the lowest social mobility of all developed countries with only 8% of all persons born into the bottom quintile making it into the top quintile. These numbers are worse for people of color, with income gaps widening for people of color. Equality does not mean that we all have the right to complain, equality (by its very definition) means fairness in economics. Not the same ground to complain. Because, as we see with the Midland Wastewater Treatment Plant, they did speak out. For a decade and a half. It wasn't enough. They built it. They did as they wanted. And communities of color and poor communities have had this happen from Houston landfills in the 70s, to Midland today. As for "entitlement"? Nothing speaks more towards entitlement than someone who speaks out against equity and justice because the basic PREMISE makes them uncomfortable. They don't have the means to fix it, because the state apparatus ignores their voices. It makes it impossible for these people to escape the harm being done to them, which in turn makes it harder to escape the harm being done to them down the road due to the initial conditions. This is a complex issue, full of complex socioeconomic problem, and "entitlement" isn't even in the same zip code of the verbage needing to be used. Entitlement is being able to force economic and environmental injustices on minorities and poor folks. That's entitlement. We could go into the fact that this comment stated that it's not the city's job to be equitable, but we'll just leave the ignorance to be on display with the rest of the context we just provided. Maybe just learn that the state system should be used for justice and equality, not for furthering the desires and whims of a few wealthy white folks. And no, for the final sentence, no. Equality will not be reached by singing campfire songs while standing hand-in-hand by changing our views on the "less fortunate". Equality will be achieved by radical change to the system that propogates environmental injustice in favor of profits and a racial status quo.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
November 2018
Categories |